On 10/28/12 9:34 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:24:19PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Yeah, I knew it wasn't ;) I did resend >> [PATCH] ext4: fix unjournaled inode bitmap modification >> which is a bit more involved. > > Yeah, sorry, I didn't see your updated patch at first, since this mail > thread is one complicated tangle. :-( > >> That'll get_write_access on the same buffer over and over, I suppose >> it's ok, but the patch I sent tries to minimize that, and call >> ext4_handle_release_buffer if we're not going to use it (which is >> a no-op today anyway and not normally used I guess...) > > Well, it's really rare that we will go through that loop more than > once; it only happens if we have multiple processes race against each > other trying to grab the same inode. > >> If ext4_handle_release_buffer() is dead code now, and repeated calls >> via repeat_in_this_group: are no big deal, then your version looks fine. > > Yeah, I think it's pretty much dead code. At least, I can't think of > a good reason why we would want to actually try to handle > ext4_handle_release_buffer() to claw back the transaciton credit. And > if we do, we'll have to do a sweep through the entire ext4 codebase > anyway. Yeah, seems that way. Then your simpler version is probably the way to go. Thanks, -Eric > - Ted > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
